JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - Is the action of the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Patiala in demanding interest from the petitioner @ 20.5% illegal ? This is a short question that arises for consideration. A few facts, as relevant fort the decision of this case, may be briefly noticed. 2. On November 11, 1998, the respondent issued an advertisement informing the public that "Free-hold built-up commercial booths at Patiala" shall be auctioned on November 20, 1998. In this advertisement, it was inter alia stated that the successful bidder shall have to deposit 10% of the bid amount at the fall of the hammer and 15% within 30 days. The balance amount of 75% could be paid within 60 days without any interest. In the alternative, the amount equal to 75% could be paid in four equated yearly instalments with interest @ 15%. 3. The petitioner participated in the auction of a built-up booth. Her bid was accepted. Vide letter dated February 15, 1999, the petitioner was allotted booth No. 22 in the Urban Estate Phase I, Patiala. In this letter of allotment, it was specifically mentioned that the amount of Rs. 82,750/- paid by her had been adjusted as 25% of the sale price. The balance amount of Rs. 2,48,250/- could be paid "in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter without any interest or in four yearly instalments alongwith interest @ 20.5% per annum". The first instalment was to become due at the expiry of one year form the date of auction. The petitioner represented. She claimed that the rate of interest as mentioned in the advertisement was 15%. Thus, the Authority could not levy interest @ 20.5%. She also pointed out that even in another advertisement issued on October 2, 1999, the rate of interest had been mentioned as 15% per annum. On these premises, the petitioner claimed that the action of the Authority in levying interest at the rate of 20.5% was arbitrary and unfair. 4. The representation submitted by the petitioner was not decided. She approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 8620 of 2000. This petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated January 18, 2001. 4. The representation submitted by the petitioner was not decided. She approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 8620 of 2000. This petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated January 18, 2001. The Chief Administrator of the respondent-Authority was directed to decide the petitioners case by passing a speaking order and after examination of the record relating to the two advertisements. 5. In pursuance to the directions given by the Bench, the Chief Administrator has decided the petitioners representation vide order, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-6 with the writ petition. After hearing the petitioner, the Chief Administrator has found that in the letter of allotment it had been specifically mentioned that the interest shall be charged @ 20.5%. It has also been observed that interest had been levied at this rate as HUDCO was charging interest from the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority @ 20.5% in respect of the built-up booths. With these findings, the petitioners representation was rejected. 6. Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of the respondent-Authority in levying interest @ 20.5% is wholly arbitrary and unfair. The Authority has practised deception with the petitioner. Is it so ? 7. It is the admitted position that in the letter of allotment issued to the petitioner, it had been specifically mentioned that interest shall be charged @ 20.5%. The petitioner had accepted this offer without any reservation. Having done so, she should not normally be entitled to challenge the rate of interest. Irrespective of that, the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-Authority was bound to levy interest at the rate mentioned in the advertisement. We are unable to accept this contention. The advertisement was a mere notice inviting offers. After the petitioner had made an offer, the respondent-Authority had issued a letter of allotment. It was in the nature of a counter-offer. The petitioner was entitled to reject it. Since the petitioner has accepted the counter-offer made by the respondent-Authority, she cannot now be permitted to say that the action is arbitrary and unfair. 8. Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh contends that even in the advertisement issued on October 2, 1999, the rate of interest had been stipulated at 15%. It is undoubtedly so. Since the petitioner has accepted the counter-offer made by the respondent-Authority, she cannot now be permitted to say that the action is arbitrary and unfair. 8. Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh contends that even in the advertisement issued on October 2, 1999, the rate of interest had been stipulated at 15%. It is undoubtedly so. However, the point that the counsel has missed is that the second advertisement is in respect of commercial sites and not built-up booth. If the respondent-Authority is taking loan from HUDCO to build booths and is paying interest at the rate of 20.5%, its action in charging the petitioner at that rate cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. In case of Free-hold sites no loan is taken by the Authority. Consequently, a lower rate of interest appears to have been levied. 9. No other point has been raised. 10. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is consequently dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.